If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

00:06
welcome to space news from the electric
00:08
universe brought to you by the
00:10
thunderbolts project at Thunderbolts dot
00:13
info on this series we are shining a
00:19
light on an unresolvable problem for
00:21
astrophysicists the challenge of
00:23
explaining unimaginably powerful
00:25
electromagnetic emissions and energies
00:27
in a universe in which electricity
00:29
causes nothing in our first three
00:32
episodes we explored this question
00:35
through our discussion of the stupendous
00:36
magnetic and filamentary structures seen
00:39
all throughout the visible universe the
00:42
features are neither predicted nor
00:44
explained in gravity centric cosmology
00:47
but they are the expected features of an
00:49
electric universe fantastic
00:51
electromagnetic phenomena are
00:53
increasingly recognized with each
00:55
passing year from the powerful electric
00:58
fields and supersonic plasma Jets
01:00
detected on our own earth to the
01:03
mysterious electron acceleration in
01:06
Jupiter's aurora and even tremendous
01:08
electric currents measured in galactic
01:11
Jets yet standard astronomy still holds
01:14
two theories in which mechanical and
01:16
kinetic processes collisions
01:19
explosions gravitational collapse
01:22
heating and shock waves produce the
01:25
measured electrical effects but it
01:28
cannot be a coincidence that ever finer
01:30
technological data only increases
01:32
astrophysicists expressions of amazement
01:35
and perplexity in this episode we will
01:39
explain why the discovery of quote giant
01:42
light bulbs in space is the forth of ten
01:45
reasons why the universe is electric the
01:49
Fermi bubbles it is one of a growing
01:52
list of astounding mysteries that demand
01:54
entirely new theoretical pathways for
01:58
over seven years
01:59
astronomers have struggled to explain
02:01
the presence of the so called Fermi
02:03
bubbles giant structures emitting
02:06
powerful gamma rays that stretch for
02:08
tens of thousands of light-years above
02:10
and below the Milky Way's spiral disk
02:13
both the structures mind-boggling size
02:15
and energetic emissions appeared to pose
02:17
intractable problems for astrophysicists
02:21
astronomers using the Fermi gamma-ray
02:23
Space Telescope discovered the so-called
02:25
bubbles in 2010 the energetic lobes
02:29
emanating from the Milky Way's Center
02:31
have been a source of extreme puzzlement
02:33
ever since the 2014 fizzle article
02:37
despite extensive analysis Fermi bubbles
02:40
defy explanation outlines the mystery as
02:43
follows the outlines of the bubbles are
02:46
quite sharp and the bubbles themselves
02:48
glow in nearly uniform gamma rays over
02:51
their colossal surfaces like to 30,000
02:54
light years all incandescent bulbs
02:57
screwed into the center of the galaxy
02:59
their size is another puzzle the
03:02
farthest reaches of the Fermi bubbles
03:04
both some of the highest energy gamma
03:06
rays but there's no discernible cause
03:08
for them that far from the galaxy as we
03:11
outlined in a recent space news episode
03:14
does gravity cause lightning in space it
03:17
seems almost beyond belief that
03:19
astrophysicists can only visualize
03:21
mechanical and kinetic processes even
03:24
when observing the unmistakable
03:25
signatures of electrical discharge
03:27
phenomena the aforementioned phys.org
03:30
report poses the question what blew the
03:33
bubbles as if air is being expelled from
03:36
the galactic center and filling a
03:38
balloon like fabric in the vacuum of
03:41
space
03:42
one theoretical possibility
03:44
investigators have proposed is that a
03:46
tremendous population of giant stars all
03:49
exploded at roughly the same time for
03:51
some reason somehow forming the gamma
03:54
ray bubbles as noted in the phys.org
03:57
report another ad hoc theory for the
04:00
quote bubbles is that they quote could
04:02
have been created by huge Jets have
04:04
accelerated matter blasting out from the
04:07
supermassive black hole at the center of
04:09
our galaxy
04:10
more recently in 2017 astronomers claim
04:14
that a so-called giant snack several
04:16
million years ago by the hypothetical
04:18
black hole believed to be at Sagittarius
04:20
a produced the energy that created the
04:23
bubbles
04:24
the scientists may have forgotten that
04:27
the supposed black hole had the
04:28
opportunity for another quote snack when
04:31
the gas cloud g2 made its
04:33
long-anticipated closest approach in
04:35
2014 apparently the imagined
04:39
gravitational monster was not hungry
04:41
leaving the gas cloud intact to the
04:44
amazement of astronomers around the
04:45
world we again note the irony of
04:49
scientists looking to colossal gravity
04:51
to explain stupendous electromagnetic
04:53
phenomena in this case no less than
04:57
quote incandescent bulbs screwed into
04:59
the center of our galaxy as we've
05:02
reported several times recently the
05:04
stupendous electric current in a
05:06
galactic jet estimated at 10 to the 18th
05:09
power amps or the equivalent to a
05:11
trillion bolts of lightning has been
05:14
measured by radio astronomers and the
05:16
seemingly unfathomable discovery of
05:18
radio jets in numerous galaxies in a
05:21
distant region of space all spinning in
05:23
the same direction will never be
05:25
explained by black hole proponents as
05:28
we've also discussed several times
05:30
recently in the electric universe an
05:33
ultra high density energy storage
05:35
phenomenon called a plasmoid is at the
05:38
core of the Milky Way a kind of load in
05:41
the Galactic electrical circuit rather
05:43
like a rechargeable battery in a
05:46
galactic circuit electrical power flows
05:48
inward along the spiral arms lighting
05:51
the Stars as it goes and is concentrated
05:54
and stored in the central plasmoid when
05:57
the plasmoid reaches a threshold density
06:00
it discharges usually along the galaxies
06:03
spin axis this process has been
06:06
replicated in the laboratory with the
06:08
plasma focused device the most seemingly
06:11
puzzling feature of the bubbles the
06:13
presence of the most intense gamma rays
06:15
at the outer edges of the bubbles at the
06:18
farthest distance from the galactic
06:19
center is explicable and indeed
06:22
predictable in the electrical
06:24
interpretation the father of plasma
06:27
cosmology Hannes Alfven proposed that a
06:30
plasma formation called a double layer
06:32
should be classified as a discrete
06:34
celestial object
06:36
that explosions of double layers could
06:38
be the source of gamma-ray bursts and
06:40
mysterious x-ray emissions a double
06:43
layer or what is known as a laying
06:45
mirror sheath forms between plasma
06:47
regions of different properties it's a
06:50
complete mystery to ask for physicists
06:52
why the most intense gamma rays should
06:54
be at the outer edges of the bubbles yet
06:57
in the electrical interpretation the
06:59
edges of the bubbles delineate the
07:01
boundary of the Galactic plasma
07:03
environment and that of deep space a
07:05
double layer only exists where there is
07:08
an electric current flowing through
07:10
space plasma in this case the double
07:13
layer at the bubbles edge would be like
07:15
a giant spherical plate capacitor with
07:18
positive charge on one plate and
07:20
negative charge on the other charged
07:23
particles are accelerated across the
07:25
double layer generating electromagnetic
07:27
radiation which can include x-rays and
07:30
gamma rays the double layer acts as a
07:33
boundary effect dissipating electrical
07:36
energy in a thin layer plasma scientist
07:39
dr. anthony peratt wrote in his book
07:41
physics of the plasma universe x-ray and
07:45
gamma ray sources are likely to have the
07:47
radiative energy supplied by electrical
07:49
currents while astronomers continue to
07:52
ascribe the bubbles to a mysterious
07:54
blast or eruption event millions of
07:57
years ago another important feature of
07:59
the bubbles completely defies this
08:01
notion while affirming the electrical
08:04
interpretation in 2013 in the journal
08:08
Nature scientists reported the
08:10
observation of quote - giant linearly
08:13
polarized radio lobes containing three
08:16
rich like substructures emanating from
08:18
the galactic center the lobes each
08:20
extend about 60 degrees in the Galactic
08:23
bulge closely corresponding to the Fermi
08:26
bubbles and are permeated by strong
08:28
magnetic fields of up to 15 micro Gauss
08:31
these extremely powerful magnetic fields
08:35
follow closely the directions of the
08:37
ridges which wind around the flow of
08:39
energy as we must find if the ridges in
08:42
fact represent electrical currents
08:46
critically the width of the ridges is
08:48
remarkably constant
08:50
at about 300 parsecs like the consistent
08:54
width of star-forming filaments the
08:56
constant width of the bubbles ridges is
08:58
the unmistakable hallmark of lightning
09:01
collisions
09:03
explosions eruptions geysers shockwaves
09:08
heating like countless others stupendous
09:11
electromagnetic phenomena in the cosmos
09:14
these kinetic and mechanical mechanisms
09:17
will never explain the spectacular Fermi
09:19
bubbles but why should it be surprising
09:22
that electricity is actually the source
09:24
of so called giant light bulbs in space
09:27
the celestial surprises will surely
09:30
continue until the light bulb of new
09:33
understanding begins to flicker in the
09:35
minds of astronomers illuminating for
09:38
them our electric universe
09:42
for continuous updates on space news
09:44
from the electric universe stay tuned to
09:47
Thunderbolts dot info
09:49
[Music]
10:02
[Music]
10:12
[Music]
10:38
[Music]
11:02
you

The rate at which the top 10 videos are coming out is painfully slow. Had I known in advance the slaw rate of production I would have probably not started this thread until more had been released. Not that there's anyone seems willing to honestly debate them anyway.

The following video is already a few years old but the point they make at the end is just so perfectly suited to this thread that I couldn't resist posting it here...

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate. The
Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

There's a reason these forces that are orders of magnitude stronger than gravity dont hold sway at cosmological distances. I'll break it down into two parts:

1: Electric field strength
Everywhere in the universe that you care to look, whenever you have a positive charge, you also have a negative charge, weather it's in plasmas, condensed matter or degenerate matter. The effect of this is that when you sum the positive charge field and the negative charge field, they cancel out at distances very near the source.

2: Magnetic field strength
Magnetic field strength is also a lot more significant at close distances than gravitational fields, but magnetic flux always forms closed loops in space. This means that it effectively does not follow the inverse square law, but, instead, an inverse cube law. This makes magnetic field strength drop off much, much more quickly with distance. I have two large (baseball sized) neodymium magnets that would utterly crush all the bones in your hand if you were to place them on either side of it, but at a distance of a couple of feet from each other there is no perceptible interaction.

This is why gravity dominates at cosmological distances. It follows the inverse square law and is unrestrained by any form of "antigravity" that would cancel it out.

'dark matter is an idiotic idea':
I don't think you understand what "dark matter" is. Its not ghostly magic undiscovered particles (though you may want to read the wikipedia page on the *known* properties of neutrinos). All dark matter is is matter that does not emit detectable radiation. It could (and probably is) a lot of things. Neutrinos, ejected planets and cold stellar remnants and naked black holes are all "dark matter".

The proponents of the electric universe "theory" seem to be making only half-educated pseudoscientific assertions, and every "explanation" they offer produces a dozen holes that they are too ignorant to see. For example "plasma redshift". That's great, certain kinds of *hot* plasma might produce some kind of red shift effect, so what, are they saying that the entire interstellar medium is made up of hot plasma? Are you f*$#ing serious with this s&$t? The obvious (stupidly obvious) hole here being that we don't observe *any* "hot interstellar plasma" (which is quite easy to detect by the way).

The argument that the Sun doesn't experience nuclear fusion had to provide a reason for the production of Judy the right number of solar neutrinos, which are a quantum particle produced in the Weak Force interactions that are associated with fusion events. Neutrinos ate observational evidence of solar fusion, and more proof that EU is a great big pile of the steaming stuff.

I don't think this is an accurate way of stating what the EU says. The solar wind is caused by the Sun (i.e. processes happening in and around the sun). It is the acceleration of the solar wind that is caused by an electromagnetic field.

In physics an electric field applied to charged particles cause them to accelerate.

Exactly, but to the modern standard model cosmologist the accelerated solar wind is a big mystery.

The Electric universe theory says that the solar wind is the result of such a field, and the Sun is electric, not fusion based.

It does not deny that fusion is taking place inside the sun, nor does it deny that the solar wind is the result of what are probably numerous different processes, including nuclear fusion. What it denies is that gravity is the primary cause of what is happening inside the sun. The EU does not deny the existence of gravity nor that it is responsible for causing things the happen in the cosmos. It merely adds the electromagnetic force, which is all but infinitely more powerful than gravity over long distances, back into the cosmological equation.

Maxwell’s theory of acceleration, however, talks about a time variable field, not a fixed one, and what’s more the solar wind contains both positive and negatively charged ions (protons and electrons mainly). An electric sun would be positively charged and all the negatively charged electrons would be attached to it – not be pushed out from the Sun on a solar wind. This fact proves the Sun is not electric.

Now that is an interesting argument that I have not yet heard. I'll read that whole article as soon as time allows and I'll see if I can find a response from the EU folks.

This is just the sort of thing I was hoping would be posted here. Care to do some digging to find some things that directly address the topics addressed in the actual "Top Ten Reasons" videos? If so, I'd love to read what ever you find.

Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

After reading that critique you linked to, I have to say that I'm rather disappointed in it. It was way too generalized and made assumptions based on those generalizations that just do not accurately portray what the EU is. In short, the author set up five straw men and, after knocking them down, declared the EU debunked. In fact, the article is so over generalized, it really makes me wonder just how much actual research the author did before writing his debunking article.

Not that I think the guy is lying. I just think that people tend to assume too much. People, especially professional scientists, hear "alternative cosmology" and instantly assume that whatever it is must be on par with ancient alien theory or something similar. They instantly leap to the crack-pot/lunatic presumption and automatically read that into whatever they see. Of course, no one can blame them for that too much because there is no doubt that the vast majority of alternative cosmologies are indeed nothing more than some wacko trying to gain his fifteen minutes of fame. In addition to that, the EU folks do, in my opinion, allow far too many people who aren't scientists and who's material is not scientific to be associated too closely with the EU model. I, for example, don't buy hardly a single word of what David Talbot proposes.

At any rate, there are some descent responses to that specific critique HERE.

Clete

Last edited by Clete; November 15th, 2017 at 09:45 PM.

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

In Number 4 of our ongoing series, "The Top Ten Reasons the Universe is Electric," we explore an ongoing astrophysical enigma -- the Fermi Bubbles, giant gamma ray structures which scientists have dubbed "incandescent bulbs screwed into the center of the galaxy." In this episode, we explore why such a feature is both explicable and predictable in the Electric Universe.

What is it about that article that is one whit more plausible than any explanation given by the EU? Are we just supposed to take it as coincidence that the two lobes are symmetrical and forget that an event caused by a singularity would have no way of creating two partially overlapped spheres? I mean if this were caused by a single event then why would the aftermath be so uniformly symmetrical at all and under what imaginable circumstance could it have caused two distinct lobes to form rather than a single lobe centered around the event?

Further, 6 - 9 million years ago? That's a very large margin of error. I mean, 9 million years is a full 50% longer period of time than 6 million years. I get that it more than a mere guess but common already.

Lastly, it is most important that the article presents an interpretation of observed data. The data consists of negatively red-shifted (blue-shifted) high velocity absorption spectra. In other words, they use the light absorbed by the gasses in the bubble to determine how fast they are moving. That's it. That's all the data actually tells them. Every syllable of anything about a black-hole is interpretation based on what the scientist think they already know. The data does not, so far as I am aware, contradict anything that the EU theory states about the nature of these Fermi Bubbles. They would simply have a different interpretation of the data.

Clete

P.S. Keep in mind that I'm really truly am not an EU proponent. I'm mainly playing devil's advocate here and responding in the manner that I would intuitively expect an actual EU devotee to respond.

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

After reading that critique you linked to, I have to say that I'm rather disappointed in it. It was way too generalized and made assumptions based on those generalizations that just do not accurately portray what the EU is. In short, the author set up five straw men and, after knocking them down, declared the EU debunked.

The fact that it even raises a nail to put in the coffin is an excellent example of the sort of confirmation bias that I'm talking about in regards to people rejecting alternative cosmologies without even understanding what they actually propose. The comment you highlight sounds very reasonable and would be an excellent point except that the EU does NOT deny that plasma is neutral in an overall sense, it does not present plasma as something other than what the experimental and observational evidence supports, which is very clear and quite well known and understood. As a result, the comment doesn't even touch the EU much less hammer nails in it's coffin.

The very next comment after the one you highlighted puts it perfectly...

"A common misconception. Cosmic plasma is not electrically neutral, it is quasi-neutral, which means that it tends towards neutrality. This is why the solar wind is not held by the Sun's gravitation field, and accelerates towards the heliopause, and why it forms the heliospheric current sheet, carrying a billion amps.

Even the immense gravitational field of a black hole can not hold its surrounding plasma, and forms astrophysical jets (which are actually non-neutral, ie. they are charged particle beams), that can extend 5000 light-years (M87's jet).

Yes, space plasmas are neutral overall, but quasi-neutraliity means that charge imbalances occur, over light-years, as demonstrated by jets."

Clete

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

Still waiting for a quantitative theory. Without it all you get is hand wavy qualitative, descriptive explanations that are no more useful than Hydroplate theory or Bach Flower remedies.

Without numbers there is nothing to use to price that the theory predicts anything at all, asks it certainly doesn't disprove actual physics, which has a fantastically precise, quantitative sweet of theories and experimental results.

The fact that it even raises a nail to put in the coffin is an excellent example of the sort of confirmation bias that I'm talking about in regards to people rejecting alternative cosmologies without even understanding what they actually propose.